Google done' goofed - fires employee for "opinions"

[interchange]

Wow that was an interesting read. However, some of it's assertions seem pretty bold. See the highlighted portion below. They appear to blame women for the declining wages of veterinarians.

Their conclusions seem entirely based on evidence. I would need to review the literature to render an opinion on whether the authors had bias in choosing or interpreting the studies they cite or fail to incorporate limitations of those studies. However, nothing there alarms my initial reading.

The truth is that salary is a poor proxy of job satisfaction for everyone, although it certainly influences choice of job. The authors are stating that data shows a difference in criteria for selecting a job and negotiating the salary. If true, having more women in the work force would lower salaries. And possibly not just for women. Having a house in your neighborhood sell at a low price affects your own home value. This is partly supply/demand, but it's also because many things are hard to value objectively and thus are valued largely by reference to similarly things that have had a value assigned. For objects that have no intrinsic value (e.g. art), the markets can be extremely volatile and subject to manipulation. If you collect rare things, a good way to make your collection more valuable is to publicly overpay for an addition to your collection because suddenly the objects you already possess are now worth what you paid for the new one.

Too much digression. The above may actually have nothing to do with biologic differences in men and women or even much to do with societal expectations. I think it probably does, but here's an interesting hypothesis: male veterinarians with some significant frequency have wives who stay at home with children. Female veterinarians are less likely to have husbands with the same role. Thus, there may be no difference at all in absolute priority of job attributes and ability to perform the job based on sex, however male veterinarians are more likely to seek higher income because of the demands of their specific situation. I don't think this hypothesis is correct or at least adequate, but I wanted to provide an example where there is a difference in data between sexes which is independent of any difference based on sex itself.

All that said, salary variation is complex, so conclusions based on that data are to be taken with some skepticism.

Separately, noticing these differences is not sexist. The quote you provide doesn't suggest why the observed behavior is what it is, does not judge it good or bad, does not propose any action in response, and speaks to population data as opposed to individuals. Within groups, there is expected to be a lot of heterogeneity.

This is in contrast to your suggestion that male care providers fake empathy and that people would be better off seeking female providers. I don't have any problem with this observation for yourself nor your suggestion for others, however it is sexist and ought to be expressed as your belief instead of what necessarily is objectively true. Within it, you have concluded that your perception of faked empathy emanates from the provider's lack of empathy instead of a host of causes, that your observations are a sufficient and unbiased collection of data, and that even if there are objective group differences, there is no room for some men to have empathy nor some women to lack it (and gradiations in between).

 

[Starbuck1975]

I think what they want to lead in is diversity. You are the one interested in the conversation. It is a fascinating one to be sure.

Leadership requires listening. The end goal of diversity is to eliminate biases, expose prejudices and further the cause of social justice. Social change is hard. This employee was the only one bold enough to question the means of achieving those goals. There are undoubtedly others at Google who feel the same way he does. By firing him, Google sent a very clear message. It will further entrench the very attitudes they seek to eliminate and undermine the very goal that they wish to lead on yet seems to allude them.

They're apparently having a Town Hall today.

 

[interchange]

Has anyone considered the contradiction between this notion that gender is 100% socially constructed and the left's defense of transgenders on the grounds that their sense of gender identity is biologically based? If the feminist theory of socially constructed gender identity is accurate, then a TG person ought to be able to "get over it" and identify with their original biologically assigned gender, perhaps through some kind of "conversion therapy." Socially constructed gender identity means that TG people learn to be that way. By definition, they couldn't have been born with it.

The clear answer is that it's both, and with varying and complicated relationships in each individual. You cannot generalize development of anything that deals with identity.

But assuming you could, this does not mean that a socially based identity is readily changed. Grief is a prime example. Biologically, the person is dead, the job is lost, the marriage is over, etc. Yet untangling how these things shape who we are can plunge people all the way to psychosis and suicide. Imagine something so fundamental to your sense of self as what gender you are.

And on that subject, why do people imagine that such a concept of your own gender is peaceably static? Even non trans people without mental illness have conflicts about their gender identities and sexual identities. If you think otherwise, consider that any uncertainty about who you are might be so unacceptable to you that it is rendered entirely unconscious and in order to keep it in your unconscious you might do things like assert that you are an unquestionable authority on the mind and experiences of an 8 year old whom you've never met.

Come on folks. I value the sharing of your own internal experiences and beliefs about how they may apply to others, but to assume any authority here is asinine. I'm a psychiatrist. I have worked with trans patients plenty of times. All I can say for sure is that they are people and worthy of being treated like people. A common experience is that even "accepting" people still act differently because they are trying to respect their gender identity and totally disregard who they actually are as a person independently.

 

[woolfe9998]

The clear answer is that it's both, and with varying and complicated relationships in each individual. You cannot generalize development of anything that deals with identity.

But assuming you could, this does not mean that a socially based identity is readily changed. Grief is a prime example. Biologically, the person is dead, the job is lost, the marriage is over, etc. Yet untangling how these things shape who we are can plunge people all the way to psychosis and suicide. Imagine something so fundamental to your sense of self as what gender you are.

And on that subject, why do people imagine that such a concept of your own gender is peaceably static? Even non trans people without mental illness have conflicts about their gender identities and sexual identities. If you think otherwise, consider that any uncertainty about who you are might be so unacceptable to you that it is rendered entirely unconscious and in order to keep it in your unconscious you might do things like assert that you are an unquestionable authority on the mind and experiences of an 8 year old whom you've never met.

Come on folks. I value the sharing of your own internal experiences and beliefs about how they may apply to others, but to assume any authority here is asinine. I'm a psychiatrist. I have worked with trans patients plenty of times. All I can say for sure is that they are people and worthy of being treated like people. A common experience is that even "accepting" people still act differently because they are trying to respect their gender identity and totally disregard who they actually are as a person independently.

First off, I agree that gender identity is a mix of biology and socialization. It's what I've been saying all along. And it's consistent with bulk of the extant science. What I'm reacting to here is the feminist notion that gender is 100% a social construct, that there are literally no biologically inherent differences between the genders other than genitalia and body morphology.

I agree that even if "learned," it could be quite difficult to reverse. However, as you apparently know, TG can and do get therapy because their condition has been labelled a disorder by the psychiatric profession. I think they're also required to get therapy before undergoing a surgical transition. Yet I've never once heard of a TG losing the urge to transition and all the sudden deciding that they prefer their originally biologically assigned gender. AFAIK it never happens. Just like with gay conversion therapy. If it's learned, it should happen in at least some cases.

Finally, if you're a psychiatrist, please petition the APA to stop classifying TG as a disorder like they did with homosexuality until the early 1970's. All they are doing is reinforcing existing social norms by labeling an atypical behavior pattern as a disorder, and using the distress caused by discrimination and bigotry to justify it. On this tiny little piece of social media we have right here alone, we have anti-TG bigots citing this classification on a daily basis to justify their bigotry. The APA is doing no favors to the cause of TG rights.

 

[realibrad]

First off, I agree that gender identity is a mix of biology and socialization. It's what I've been saying all along. And it's consistent with bulk of the extant science. What I'm reacting to here is the feminist notion that gender is 100% a social construct, that there are literally no biologically inherent differences between the genders other than genitalia and body morphology.

I agree that even if "learned," it could be quite difficult to reverse. However, as you apparently know, TG can and do get therapy because their condition has been labelled a disorder by the psychiatric profession. I think they're also required to get therapy before undergoing a surgical transition. Yet I've never once heard of a TG losing the urge to transition and all the sudden deciding that they prefer their originally biologically assigned gender. AFAIK it never happens. Just like with gay conversion therapy. If it's learned, it should happen in at least some cases.

Finally, if you're a psychiatrist, please petition the APA to stop classifying TG as a disorder like they did with homosexuality until the early 1970's. All they are doing is reinforcing existing social norms by labeling an atypical behavior pattern as a disorder, and using the distress caused by discrimination and bigotry to justify it. On this tiny little piece of social media we have right here alone, we have anti-TG bigots citing this classification on a daily basis to justify their bigotry. The APA is doing no favors to the cause of TG rights.

Having a condition does not condone people being an asshat though. It would be like telling a depressed person not to be depressed. There are treatment to help with the symptoms but there is not a cure for depression and TG could be looked at the same way.

Being TG is not "normal" but that does not mean you get to treat people that are not "normal" badly. Its generally taboo to treat people badly because of medical conditions.

 

[pmv]

Has anyone considered the contradiction between this notion that gender is 100% socially constructed and the left's defense of transgenders on the grounds that their sense of gender identity is biologically based? If the feminist theory of socially constructed gender identity is accurate, then a TG person ought to be able to "get over it" and identify with their original biologically assigned gender, perhaps through some kind of "conversion therapy." Socially constructed gender identity means that TG people learn to be that way. By definition, they couldn't have been born with it.

Surprisingly enough, many people have considered that. I'd be surprised if anyone hadn't.

It's the reason why radical feminists (by which I don't just mean any feminist the right don't like, I mean the very specific strand of feminism known by that name) are in many cases very much at loggerheads with trans activists. Radfems are often the most vocal opponents of trans women, making precisely the argument you present.

Personally, I don't believe anyone actually knows the truth one way or another. Even declaring it's part biology and part culture is going further than it seems to me that the evidence justifies. It appears to me that the nature of gender is something that science hasn't actually got very far with yet. Along with 'what is consciousness', 'how does mind relate to matter', 'is strong AI possible?' and such like.

So we have the human dilemma of how to deal with a situation when we just don't have the knowledge to do so. And all I can think of is that we have to muddle through by working out what seems to cause the least harm to actual existing people, as best we can judge. Which could include treating gender as innate and as socially-constructed, depending on the context and on who would be hurt by doing one or the other.

(And hoping a direct clash between those two doesn't come up too often)

 

[woolfe9998]

Having a condition does not condone people being an asshat though. It would be like telling a depressed person not to be depressed. There are treatment to help with the symptoms but there is not a cure for depression and TG could be looked at the same way.

Being TG is not "normal" but that does not mean you get to treat people that are not "normal" badly. Its generally taboo to treat people badly because of medical conditions.

That is all true, but anti-TG bigots still see it as justification for their bigotry. They cite it all the time. In particular, they use its classification as such to counter the notion that people are born with a gender identity which is at odds with their genitalia. If it's a disorder, so the reasoning goes, they can get over it. Yet the truth is, it isn't really a disorder so much as a deviation from social norms. APA uses social norms to determine what is considered a disorder. They've always done so. It's why homosexuality was in the DSM as a disorder until 1973. And they are quite happy to use the emotional distress caused by being treated as a social pariah to justify its classification as a disorder, which then further justifies the poor treatment that caused them distress to begin with.

 

[xthetenth]

Wow that was an interesting read. However, some of it's assertions seem pretty bold. See the highlighted portion below. They appear to blame women for the declining wages of veterinarians.

That'd be an interesting one, because that relationship has been noted as occurring in the other direction as software engineering became male dominated.

I never said bias is acceptable. I said there is merit to the employee's criticisms of the effectiveness of the diversity programs at Google, and as a biologist, he attempted (and failed) to make an argument grounded in biology. He unfortunately also triggered the diversity cult, which demanded its blood sacrifice and received it.

Also, we are talking about Google. The cream of the crop. The 1%. The most brilliant minds in the world. If they cannot handle what the author wrote, it says more about them than him.

It doesn't matter. I've enjoyed reading the articles that address both sides of the political divide, and neither side is wrong. It's a healthy conversation to have. Google surrendered the opportunity to lead the conversation by firing him.

He displayed gross incompetence in attempting to understand things both as a biologist and as a human being. Labeling bias as "political difference" and pretending that makes it immediately all right isn't enough to mean that having someone expressing views like that doesn't make them a direct threat to the fair treatment and morale of other employees.

Just to make this easy, let's approach what he wrote and how that would've been different if he'd been worth keeping. People are saying that this is just saying that women are different from men. It's not. It's saying that women are different from men and that these differences necessarily contribute to their under representation in tech. (Also it's effectively saying the author should be immune from criticism effectively silencing people he doesn't agree with, but that's for later). If he were being honest and negotiating in good faith, he wouldn't be treating the disparity as it currently exists as being in some part justified, and then working to find those justifications. If you're going to admit the possibility that it's reasonable that the ideal state contains more men than women and are going to be fair, you have to admit the possibility that equal numbers or even more women than men could be the ideal state. Otherwise you're not playing in good faith, and you're asking that everyone take it as a premise that women are inferior to men. This is why people are pissed and he's been cordially uninvited from contributing to Google's culture.

It's kind of amazing how all the people defending him are saying the offensive thing is that he's saying men and women are different, but that he's framed the discussion so that any difference is a matter of female inferiority. Modern engineering and development programs are obsessed with figuring out how to make large numbers of people communicate and cooperate effectively. Somehow he manages to not ask the obvious questions of whether his biotruths assertions that women are more socially oriented and prefer more group oriented environments is a good thing. He also manages to not handle the fact I've mentioned that software engineering is a much more gender balanced field outside the West, which means either a far more female friendly culture, in which case the appropriate response is to engage with it and how it works, or that the current imbalance in the west isn't just a natural state of affairs that arises inevitably from the nature of the job.

His continued employment doesn't do anything to promote having a meaningful discussion, because he doesn't approach the issue fairly, and his framing of it excludes possibilities that should be considered in an honest discussion. And that's the real crux of the issue, not some simplistic prattle about "triggering the diversity cult". He's not interested in actually making progress on meaningful goals, he's seeking to exculpate any feelings he has of responsibility. And that means that he is actively seeking to halt progress, and worse yet because he's dressed up his bias as a political difference, he isn't even considering opposing views, since he is dismissing criticism of his views much the same way you are. All criticism of him is cast as unfair political persecution.

"In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves."

Think about the implications of that quote for a second. He feels that he should be entitled to express his views without hostility. This, in a rant where he considers other people's worthiness to be up for debate. If this is his version of conservativism, reacting to it with hostility is a response in kind, and what he is asking is expressing an entitlement to a higher status, where he can be hostile to others, who are kept from anything he perceives as hostile. He also uses this to protect himself from having to actually engage with any arguments. He says "...when a man complains about a gender issue affecting men, he's labelled as a misogynist and a whiner." He does not say why, he doesn't give any reasons, because he has not listened to why and he has not listened to the reasoning. He is not interested in discussion, he is interested in lecturing unopposed.

When you really get down to it, there's a lot of the entitlement and rhetorical technique of abuse in the modern pretensions of the right to try and cast themselves as persecuted (and seriously, co-opting the idea of being in the closet is incredibly gross) because they are finally exposed to criticism and no longer given a platform for ideas that are a candy coated justification for harming others. And similarly to abusive relations, the victims are harmed if we expect a fair discussion without demanding empathy from the perpetrator. It gives legitimacy to the notions that the basic rights of the victims are up for negotiation, and justifies his premise that he is persecuted.

You're incorporating his dishonesty into what you say. "If they cannot handle what the author wrote, it says more about them than him." If what he said is not up to their standards, it says a great deal about him, but also about them (Although Google execs have engaged in disgraceful waffling that they have been rightly called out on by other googlers).

 

[woolfe9998]

Surprisingly enough, many people have considered that. I'd be surprised if anyone hadn't.

It's the reason why radical feminists (by which I don't just mean any feminist the right don't like, I mean the very specific strand of feminism known by that name) are in many cases very much at loggerheads with trans activists. Radfems are often the most vocal opponents of trans women, making precisely the argument you present.

This is evidently true, and also for other reasons besides what is under discussion. I was surprised when I read this just now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#Feminism

Though second-wave feminism argued for the sex and gender distinction, some feminists believed there was a conflict between transgender identity and the feminist cause; e.g., they believed that male-to-female transition abandoned or devalued female identity and that transgender people embraced traditional gender roles and stereotypes. Many transgender feminists, however, view themselves as contributing to feminism by questioning and subverting gender norms. Third-wave and contemporary feminism are generally more supportive of transgender people.

Obviously this is not all feminists, just some. But I have to say, I'm rather tired of people who advocate for the rights of certain traditionally disadvantaged groups not supporting other groups facing similar disadvantage. Like all the black people in California who voted against allowing gay marriage. It's hypocritical.

Personally, I don't believe anyone actually knows the truth one way or another. Even declaring it's part biology and part culture is going further than it seems to me that the evidence justifies. It appears to me that the nature of gender is something that science hasn't actually got very far with yet. Along with 'what is consciousness', 'how does mind relate to matter', 'is strong AI possible?' and such like.

I think that may be over-stating the uncertainty. I agree this is a difficult area to uncover all of the truth, but it's more knowable than "what is consciousness." Gender identity can be studied in ways that can shed light on its roots being biological versus sociological. We may not have complete and precise knowledge here, but there's enough out there to safely conclude the general proposition that it's a mix.

 

[xthetenth]

It is simultaneously possible to believe that gender is overloaded with tons of baggage that underemphasizes the individual and that it is tied into a person's sense of self in a way that causes dysphoria. The emphasis should be on respecting the person's idea of who they in particular are, and their particular talents and interests.

We've got an absolute ton of stuff that's treated as male or female for reasons that are pretty obviously not biological due to known barriers to access or stigma, and looking at how to increase access and decrease stigma is a pretty unambiguously good thing.

At the end of the day we shouldn't treat people like they're one sort of person or another just because of some trait that isn't a 100% correspondence. Even something with obvious documented dimorphism, like physical strength, if you need that you find the people who have it and are interested in using it, and you don't prioritize a guy in awful shape over a woman who exercises a ton.

 

[Moonbeam]

Leadership requires listening. The end goal of diversity is to eliminate biases, expose prejudices and further the cause of social justice. Social change is hard. This employee was the only one bold enough to question the means of achieving those goals. There are undoubtedly others at Google who feel the same way he does. By firing him, Google sent a very clear message. It will further entrench the very attitudes they seek to eliminate and undermine the very goal that they wish to lead on yet seems to allude them.

They're apparently having a Town Hall today.

There is a controversy because there are different oxen in the game. Google defended the ox of their choice, a choice they are entitled to make. They came down on the side of gender diversity, their version of how it should go. In the context of the culture that google functions in, I think they came down on the right side. I see the alternative view, not as helpful to google, but as an attitude based of facts that only exist because of past gender discrimination. It is gender racism. There is no question that women and minorities suffer from past cultural discrimination against them. Context is everything, not supposed good intentions.

 

[realibrad]

That is all true, but anti-TG bigots still see it as justification for their bigotry. They cite it all the time. In particular, they use its classification as such to counter the notion that people are born with a gender identity which is at odds with their genitalia. If it's a disorder, so the reasoning goes, they can get over it. Yet the truth is, it isn't really a disorder so much as a deviation from social norms. APA uses social norms to determine what is considered a disorder. They've always done so. It's why homosexuality was in the DSM as a disorder until 1973. And they are quite happy to use the emotional distress caused by being treated as a social pariah to justify its classification as a disorder, which then further justifies the poor treatment that caused them distress to begin with.

Well classically speaking homosexuality would still qualify as a disorder, but the social implications justified a change. If you believe the natural state of people to be male and female and the reason for that gender dimorphism is for the purpose of reproduction, then being a homosexual person would break the reproductive cycle. Its a lot more complex than that, but having a disorder should not justify bigotry.

That said, bigotry is probably not the right word there, as its generally accepted that homosexuality is not an opinion or belief, but a feeling inherent to the individuals biology. Being born with inherent feelings can still be a disorder, but it would not be an opinion.

People use the differences of others to justify being shitty, but so long as they are not "normal", calling it something other than a disorder generally wont change how people are that much.

 

[interchange]

Having a condition does not condone people being an asshat though. It would be like telling a depressed person not to be depressed. There are treatment to help with the symptoms but there is not a cure for depression and TG could be looked at the same way.

Being TG is not "normal" but that does not mean you get to treat people that are not "normal" badly. Its generally taboo to treat people badly because of medical conditions.

There is a fundamental problem with understanding here. Gender identity disorder is not defined by transgenderism. It is defined by the distress and dysfunction that some people experience related to their gender identity regardless of whether they clearly see themselves as transgendered.

It will not be removed because it is an important problem for some people which may benefit from psychotherapy. And in no way is it rendering judgement on whether it is right or wrong to be transgendered nor stating that transgender identity itself is any form of mental illness.

 

[realibrad]

There is a fundamental problem with understanding here. Gender identity disorder is not defined by transgenderism. It is defined by the distress and dysfunction that some people experience related to their gender identity regardless of whether they clearly see themselves as transgendered.

It will not be removed because it is an important problem for some people which may benefit from psychotherapy. And in no way is it rendering judgement on whether it is right or wrong to be transgendered nor stating that transgender identity itself is any form of mental illness.

A correct distinction but I believe the context was about the individuals that are under distress. That was at least how I took it considering the topic was about how those people are treated.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well classically speaking homosexuality would still qualify as a disorder, but the social implications justified a change. If you believe the natural state of people to be male and female and the reason for that gender dimorphism is for the purpose of reproduction, then being a homosexual person would break the reproductive cycle. Its a lot more complex than that, but having a disorder should not justify bigotry.

No. This is the trap of believing that non-reproductive sexual behavior is somehow problematic. By this definition, using birth control would also be a disorder. There's nothing wrong with sex not meant to be reproductive. Indeed, there is nothing unnatural about it either. If it was unnatural, then other species wouldn't be doing it too, yet they are. Obviously everyone can't be gay or the species would die off but that doesn't mean being gay is a disorder. It's more likely a result of genetric drift, where a certain percentage of the species may have a same sex preference. I don't know what you mean here by "classically," but if it means the outdated, intolerant way of thinking, then I agree.

That said, bigotry is probably not the right word there, as its generally accepted that homosexuality is not an opinion or belief, but a feeling inherent to the individuals biology. Being born with inherent feelings can still be a disorder, but it would not be an opinion.

Yeah, I'm not going to engage a semantic argument about how best to label one particular form of intolerant douchebaggery versus another. It is what it is.

 

[woolfe9998]

There is a fundamental problem with understanding here. Gender identity disorder is not defined by transgenderism. It is defined by the distress and dysfunction that some people experience related to their gender identity regardless of whether they clearly see themselves as transgendered.

It will not be removed because it is an important problem for some people which may benefit from psychotherapy. And in no way is it rendering judgement on whether it is right or wrong to be transgendered nor stating that transgender identity itself is any form of mental illness.

It absolutely should be removed because 1) this classification is being used to justify intolerance, and 2) it's a meaningless classification if it is based solely on emotional distress. If a TG person is depressed because they are treated like a pariah, then they DO have a disorder: it's called depression. People get depressed when they are considered freaks and weirdos. Calling it "gender identity disorder" confuses the issue by obscuring it's true, direct cause. It suggests that they need some kind of therapy in relation to their gender identity, rather than treatment for the depression that is caused by the intolerance of society.

 

[Starbuck1975]

There is a controversy because there are different oxen in the game. Google defended the ox of their choice, a choice they are entitled to make. They came down on the side of gender diversity, their version of how it should go. In the context of the culture that google functions in, I think they came down on the right side. I see the alternative view, not as helpful to google, but as an attitude based of facts that only exist because of past gender discrimination. It is gender racism. There is no question that women and minorities suffer from past cultural discrimination against them. Context is everything, not supposed good intentions.

I think the better analogy is that Google expects the ox they've chosen to produce milk.

 

[Paratus]

Yep, you lost me. None of your bullet points establish how he feels about biology over social. Hell, he spent most of the time talking about traits that could be both biological and social, yet you only focus on the biological. If you feel that posting his doc is enough evidence for you to conclude his intent then I must simply not be able to follow.

As for the discrimination, look to his explanation of what he actually listed.

● Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race5
● A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
● Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
● Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
● Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination6

At no point did he say that trying to get equal distributions is inherently discrimination. He said that the processes they are trying to use are the things that are discrimination. When allocation of resources is zero-sum, and you choose to allocate those resources based on race or gender that is discrimination.

This all feels like you are not the same person that I have seen post before. Ill be honest, I am very much questioning my stance because of the people that are against my position, but I cannot for the life of me see where I am wrong.

Well I'm guessing we have had different experiences when it comes to diversity and gender in the work place.

As I've already said every woman in my family is excellent at math and science. I also went back and checked. Of the people supporting a mission I was involved with 10 years ago about 36% were women, including the leads. That's not half but the numbers are continuing to increase.

This default position of gender differences having some negative effect in technical areas is nothing I've ever experienced. Quite the contrary it's been biases and culture that have been the problem.

I've had inclusion and innovation training at work given by someone with a neuroscience degree. People inherently rely on stereotypes / unconscious bias when it comes to making decisions about others when they are not being mindful. Being mindful means using your prefrontal cortex and actually thinking.

No one is mindful at all times. It's too expensive from an energy perspective. If you put someone in an fMRI you can see the bloodlflow and glucose use increasing to the prefrontal cortex when actually thinking hard about a subject.

Falling back on stereotypes / memory maps when making a decision saves energy and time. It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Quicker and less energy intensive thinking means less chance of being killed by an animal or other human and saving calories against starvation.

Another example of this is when you drive home and can't remember how you got there. You've already built the memory map in your head on how to do it, no reason to burn more energy paying close attention.

If you are not careful you'll do the same thing with stereotypes. We pick them up from everywhere, TV, media, our families and friends. If you are rushed, tired, distracted, etc it's easy to slip out of mindfulness and rely on stereotypes.

This is a real thing. It dove tails nicely with studies showing how teachers allow biases to push girls away from science and math. It also explains the orchestra study nicely. When evaluations are done blind the evaluators are left relying more heavily on merit and less on any bias. As a result female hires increased by 50%.
(I'll reiterate that this has nothing to do with women being more present in the arts than tech, This is an experiment on the biases of those evaluating women's performance.)

You and I are also reading his words differently.

One example:

In the memo he states:

"I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:"

I think you are keying off the blue text and taking at face value that he believes in diversity. (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth so let me know if I'm way off)

I'm keying off the red text. He's pivoting from supporting diversity.

You'll point out that his only beef is in the way Google is going about diversity, a possibly legitimate complaint.

Let's look back a paragraph or so.

"Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged."

I think you are emphasizing his comments about diversity needs to be done in way that helps Google and isn't arbitrary.

I see him having a problem with diversity in general. He wants to protect those that work harder and longer to get ahead and states if they don't it will be disastrous. By itself that sounds reasonable, people who work hard should get ahead in a meritocracy, but we will come back to that in a moment.

In the last part he warns that diversity is expensive and those benefits really need to be worth it before spending money that we suprisingly don't have much of on them.

Finally let's back up a few more paragraphs.

"
Men’s higher drive for status
We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths."

So on this last paragraph my guess is you see him pointing out that men's gender driven need for status can be objectively harmful to them as a balance to where he's described women's gender driven attributes that maybe harmful to them.


I see him saying men push for higher paying jobs by working longer and harder. Couple that with the comments above and he feels it would be disastrous for the company if diversity reduced the drive for men to stop working long hours to accommodate more women.

So why is the company spending money they don't have on diversity? A concept he philosophically disagrees with because he see it as discrimination towards himself and other men.

But he's strongly for diversity......

Overall you see him as presenting a balanced argument and supporting diversity.

I see him as saying he's for diversity but then undermining the very concept by the way he presents his argument.

@xthetenth already provided a great explanation about him not really arguing from a balanced position.

Hope this helps you out.

 

[interchange]

It absolutely should be removed because 1) this classification is being used to justify intolerance, and 2) it's a meaningless classification if it is based solely on emotional distress. If a TG person is depressed because they are treated like a pariah, then they DO have a disorder: it's called depression. People get depressed when they are considered freaks and weirdos. Calling it "gender identity disorder" confuses the issue by obscuring it's true, direct cause. It suggests that they need some kind of therapy in relation to their gender identity, rather than treatment for the depression that is caused by the intolerance of society.

Actually it was renamed to gender dysphoria in DSM 5 for that exact reason. Apologies for using the old clinical name.

Nonetheless, "depression" is not clinically equivalent to dysphoria. Major depressive disorder (etc.) have specific clinical criteria of which depressed mood is only one (and in fact not a required one).

Regardless, separately classifying gender dysphoria allows it to be studied for both epidemiologic purposes and treatment purposes. Even if clinical presentation were identical to, say, dysthymia (now subsumed under persistent depressive disorder), if epidemiology or treatment differed, it would be a great disservice to each diagnosis to lump them.

Ethically, does that value outweigh the harm in it being improperly perceived by society? Don't know the answer to that.

And you've now stepped into the field of psychiatric diagnosis -- a horrifically imprecise and subjective endeavor that is unavoidably entangled with societal norms. Worthy of such criticism. But not without realizing that failure to recognize psychiatric disorders is failure to recognize the number one most impairing and common class of medical disorders. Including substance use disorders, lifetime prevalence of mental illness (transient or chronic) is close to 50%.

 

[thedrewker]

Fascinating. Undercover MRA types seem to be using motivated reasoning to cling to any shred of pseudoscience in an attempt to validate what they've always felt inside.

Wait, not fascinating. Sad and predictable is what I meant. Stupid typos.

Seriously though, what did this guy think he was going to accomplish? Other than getting fired of course. Seems like that was obviously the main goal.

But other than that, what did he think he was going to prove? Even if he managed to convincingly demonstrate some kind of deficit (which he certainly did not), he would have accomplished NOTHING. A deficit at the population level would say nothing about any individual female employed by Google. A slight deficit in proficiency at the population level would not prove that women are incapable of doing the job. Bearing that in mind, Google does not employ every female software developer in the world. Who's to say each female software developer at Google isn't the perfect exception to whatever deficit may exist?

If he wanted to accomplish anything (other than exposing his misogyny and getting fired), he would have had to demonstrate either A) zero women are capable of doing the job, or B) Google is not hiring the right women. Pointing to increased rates of anxiety in a group that has been historically oppressed doesn't tell us anything.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bshole]

These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths."

Just so you know, this is not his own idea. He is parroting almost verbatim speeches by Jordan Petersen, the canadian professor. Petersen has hundreds of videos on youtube.

 

[agent00f]

I'm no longer surprised that your posts are 100% without substance. You get called out for that and just keep right on doing it.

Degens playing too dumb to understand anything is just par for course.

Also, classic buckshot & co:

Then say no. He said yes he has the numbers, but wont show him.

Jesus dummy, it was not my question. I commented on how dumb it was to be asked if he had it, and to say yes but not share it.

This should not be so hard.

Person A: I heard you say that its 9am but my clock says its 8:30am. Can you tell me why you think its 9am?

Person B: I do indeed think its 9am and the clock I looked at says so.

Person A: Can you tell me what clock you got that from, because the clock I saw said 8:30am.

Person B: I will no tell you what clock, but I did see the clock and it says 9am.

Me: Thats silly, why not tell him the clock you used?

You: OMG why don't you go looking for the clock that he used? I know you already looked around, but look harder I mean gosh.

Me: sigh, dummy.

Hey dummy try and follow along.

BS asks for data backing up his claim, because what BS found shows a parity. So Groove responds "Yep" to the question of "Got data for that". BS did not ask is there data for your claim or can I google data to support your claim. He asked if the person had (got) data for his claim. If he has it, but is not willing to share it, that is silly.

Then your dumb ass waltzes, smears your fecal words and says something super dumb. I'm sure you know how to go looking for the data he says he has but wont share.

So congrats on that.

What rule am I enforcing? So far as I can tell, I commented how it was dumb to tell someone you have the data but not to share. Cheeze dummy is the one who was trying to tell someone to go do something. My comment is not a request, and even further from an order.

Did you confuse something?

You sure got those libtards strung along.

Stop looking at the guys words and pay more attention to the context in which he said them and their effect. Somebody lit a candle in a movie theater and screamed fire. You focus on the fact it was just a candle flame. You are a very linear thinker, one that like a dog with a bone, won't let go of your one track. You have to step back and try harder to see things more in context. Just my opinion. But watch if you don't get this kind of feedback from others, or some such, because a similar impression can take many different forms of expression, like face palm etc.

He knows what he's doing same as buckshot.

 

[woolfe9998]

Actually it was renamed to gender dysphoria in DSM 5 for that exact reason. Apologies for using the old clinical name.

Nonetheless, "depression" is not clinically equivalent to dysphoria. Major depressive disorder (etc.) have specific clinical criteria of which depressed mood is only one (and in fact not a required one).

Regardless, separately classifying gender dysphoria allows it to be studied for both epidemiologic purposes and treatment purposes. Even if clinical presentation were identical to, say, dysthymia (now subsumed under persistent depressive disorder), if epidemiology or treatment differed, it would be a great disservice to each diagnosis to lump them.

Ethically, does that value outweigh the harm in it being improperly perceived by society? Don't know the answer to that.

And you've now stepped into the field of psychiatric diagnosis -- a horrifically imprecise and subjective endeavor that is unavoidably entangled with societal norms. Worthy of such criticism. But not without realizing that failure to recognize psychiatric disorders is failure to recognize the number one most impairing and common class of medical disorders. Including substance use disorders, lifetime prevalence of mental illness (transient or chronic) is close to 50%.

Well, maybe you can help me on this, because there is an extremely close parallel here with APA's historical treatment of homosexuality. First homosexuality itself was a disorder, then in DSM III it became something like "ego dystonic homosexuality," then it was "sexual disorder not otherwise specified," which included distress caused by one's sexual orientation. Except the distress was only indirectly caused by one's sexual orientation. The direct cause was society's condemnation of a certain sexual orientation. So the true cause isn't even an issue for psychiatry, but rather an issue for sociologists. While the psychological component can be treated as a symptom of the broader sociological problem of intolerance. I see no evidence that either homosexuality or TG would cause distress without social alienation, so I don't understand the necessity of this definitional linkage between the two.

 

[Paratus]

Just so you know, this is not his own idea. He is parroting almost verbatim speeches by Jordan Petersen, the canadian professor. Petersen has hundreds of videos on youtube.

Interesting. I'm not going YouTube surfing, but any idea if he is legit or a hack? Or maybe legit but taken out of context and used by the anti-diversity crowd?

 

[agent00f]

I think the better analogy is that Google expects the ox they've chosen to produce milk.

No, what google did is what any corp in their position would've done, because it makes the most sense in contrast to degenerate talking points.

Fascinating. Undercover MRA types seem to be using motivated reasoning to cling to any shred of pseudoscience in an attempt to validate what they've always felt inside.

Wait, not fascinating. Sad and predictable is what I meant. Stupid typos.

Seriously though, what did this guy think he was going to accomplish? Other than getting fired of course. Seems like that was obviously the main goal.

But other than that, what did he think he was going to prove? Even if he managed to convincingly demonstrate some kind of deficit (which he certainly did not), he would have accomplished NOTHING. A deficit at the population level would say nothing about any individual female employed by Google. A slight deficit in proficiency at the population level would not prove that women are incapable of doing the job. Bearing that in mind, Google does not employ every female software developer in the world. Who's to say each female software developer at Google isn't the perfect exception to whatever deficit may exist?

If he wanted to accomplish anything (other than exposing his misogyny and getting fired), he would have had to demonstrate either A) zero women are capable of doing the job, or B) Google is not hiring the right women. Pointing to increased rates of anxiety in a group that has been historically oppressed doesn't tell us anything.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

A lot of these conservative bigot types confuse capitalists partnering with them politically for actual sympathy for their cause.